International or global psychology is an emerging branch of psychology that focuses on the worldwide enterprise of psychology in terms of communication and networking, cross-cultural comparison, scholarship, practice, and pedagogy. Often, the terms international psychology, global psychology, transnational psychology, and cross-cultural psychology are used interchangeably, but their purposes are subtly and importantly different: Global means worldwide, international means across and between nations, transnational means to transcend the nation-state, cross-cultural means across cultures. In contrast, the term "multicultural" is more often used to refer to ethnic and other cultural differences existing within a given nation rather than to global or international comparisons.
Definitions and scope International psychology examines the development and application of psychological science across diverse global contexts. It emphasizes collaboration with international and regional organizations such as the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS includes 87 national psychology associations and more than 20 international/regional associations), the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP), the International Council of Psychologists (ICP), the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (EFPA: it includes 36 national psychology associations), the Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología (SIP), the recently founded Pan-African Psychological Union (PAPU), and others. In addition, there exist more than 100 international psychology organizations each focusing on a specific subdiscipline. International psychology aims to develop theories, research practices, applications, and ethical guidelines that encompass the psychological study of humanity globally, striving to minimize ethnocentric biases. For an annotated bibliography on international psychology that covers 156 publications, see Harold Takooshian, Uwe P. Gielen, Grant J. Rich, and R. Velayo (2016).
In contrast, the term global psychology focuses on worldwide investigation of global issues and phenomena from a psychological and psychocultural point of view. Examples include the investigation of subjective well being, identification and treatment of mental health problems, the psychological dimensions of family systems, gender roles and gender-typed behavior, childrearing practices, cognitive and emotional functioning, international attitudes, value systems, intergroup conflicts, threats to the natural environment, societal transformation and national development, the struggles of disempowered groups (such as women, children, migrants, and refugees) as seen in a global perspective (Stevens & Gielen, 2007).
Cross-cultural psychology may be defined as the comparative study of behavior and mental processes in different cultures, whereas cultural psychology takes a more relativistic approach. Cross-cultural psychology aims to compare the psychological phenomena between cultures and looks for patterns, generalizability, and culture-specific differentiation (Lonner, 2018; Shiraev & Levy, 2013). An example would be the investigation of child-rearing practices and their psychological consequences between distinctly different groups. Cultural psychology focuses on the relationship between psychology and culture (such as language, traditions, predominant values, and socialization practices) within a culture and how it affects individual human functioning. Both cultural and cross-cultural psychology constitute important elements of global psychology. While cross-cultural psychology emerged as a distinct discipline in the 1960s–1970s, international psychology gained recognition later as a response to globalization and calls for inclusivity in psychological scholarship.
The Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines global as, "…pertaining to or involving the world, worldwide" (p. 1101) and international as, "Existing, occurring, or carried on between nations…Agreed on by many nations; used by, or able to be used by (the people of) many nations" (p. 1397). At present the term international psychology is in wider use although Stevens and Gielen (2007) prefer the term global psychology, to underline the increasingly global nature of psychological phenomena and problems together with their scientific investigation and efforts to ameliorate them. More generally, the emergence and intensification of an international psychology movement is part and parcel of the broader process of globalization in the scientific, economic, technological, sociocultural, political and ecological spheres. It reflects and makes use of the increasingly global flow of information, ideas, and peoples. In addition, globalization in psychology has led to the de facto use of English as the predominant means of communication so that academics in many parts of the world are now expected to read and publish in English-language journals.
Kurtis, Adams, Grabe, and Else-Quest have proposed a transnational psychology in order to counter the Western bias in the field of psychology. Transnational psychology applies transnational feminist lenses, developed through interdisciplinary work in postcolonial and feminist studies, to the field of psychology to study, understand, and address the impact of colonization, imperialism, and globalization. This approach uses a context-sensitive cultural psychology lens to reconsider, de-naturalize, and de-universalize psychological science. Kurtis and Adams suggested that people in the non-Western, "Majority World" (areas where the majority of the world's population lives), should be viewed as resources for revising traditional psychological science. In addition, Bhatia believes that a transnational cultural psychology is needed examine the psychology of diasporas, who are impacted by globalization and consequently have many "homes," languages, and selves.
It should be added that international psychology, global psychology, and cross-cultural psychology share the common goal of making psychology more universal and less ethnocentric in character, whereas transnational psychology is concerned with uncovering the particularities of the psychology of groups without regard to nation-state boundaries and is opposed to universalization. Historically, American psychology dominated the field post-World War II, often marginalizing non-Western contributions and relying on English-language sources, prompting efforts to diversify scholarship. In addition, reliance on English-language sources contributed to American psychology’s development as a predominantly monocultural and monolingual discipline (Draguns, 2001). Contemporary initiatives prioritize inclusive research methodologies, ethical frameworks adaptable to diverse cultural norms, and pedagogical strategies to internationalize psychology education (Leong, Pickren, Leach, & Marsella, 2012). Practical advice about how best to internationalize the teaching of psychology can be found in the handbooks of Grant J. Rich, Uwe P. Gielen, and Harold Takooshian (2017) and Keith (2018).
Foci Major foci of international psychology include:
The worldwide study of psychological processes and phenomena (e.g., Gielen, 2016; Hofstede, 2001). Macro-level interventions and policy making, for example, international efforts to reduce HIV infections based on psychological research (Wessells & Dawes, 2007), to assess and reduce ethnic conflicts (Landis & Albert, 2013), and to further global mental health (Patel, Minas, Cohen, & Prince, 2014). Micro-level interventions, for example, counseling and psychotherapy, school psychology, and interventions in organizations (e.g., Aycan, Kanungo, & Mendonça, 2014; Moodley, Gielen, & Wu, 2013; Pedersen, Lonner, Draguns, & Trimble, 2015). International networking and international psychology organizations and conferences, such as IUPsyS, IAAP, IACCP, EFPA, SIP, APA's Division 52 – International Psychology, APA's Office of International Affairs, and the Institute for International and Cross-Cultural Psychology (IICCP) (Merenda, 1995). Supporting efforts to internationalize psychology education by infusing global, international, and cultural perspectives into the curriculum, providing international and cross-cultural training experiences, increasing international faculty and student exchange, and forming collaborative research programs (Heine, 2016; Leong et al., 2012; McCarthy, Dickson, Cranney, Trapp, & Karandashev, 2012; Rich & Gielen, 2015; Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017; Takooshian, Gielen, Plous, Rich, & Velayo, 2016). Rewriting the history of psychology from a global and less ethnocentric point of view, together with corresponding changes in the curriculum (Baker, 2012; Brock, 2007; Leong et al., 2012; Rich & Gielen, 2015; Takooshian, Gielen, Plous, Rich, & Velayo, 2016). Establishing shared training standards, professional regulations, and codes of ethics (Pettifor, 2007; Leach, Stevens, Lindsay, Ferrero, & Korkut, 2012), such as the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008), which has been adopted by the IUPsyS and its 87 national member organizations (Leach, Stevens, Lindsay, Ferrero, & Korkut, 2012). Representing psychology at the United Nations especially in the context of non-governmental organizations (NGO's). An important step in this regard was taken in 2012, when The Psychology of NGOs Accredited at the United Nations (PCUN) was established by a group of psychology-based NGOs. These NGOs advocate for the inclusion of psychological perspectives, research, and practice, for instance when formulating and implementing the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Based in part on the advocacy of psychologists such as Judy Kuriansky, Chair of the Psychology Coalition of NGOs at the United Nations, mental health and well-being have for the first time been included in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Supported by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (2016), mental health specialists are now succeeding in moving mental health issues from the periphery closer to the center of worldwide efforts to improve global health.
History
Modern scientific psychology had an international dimension from its beginnings in the late 19th century. Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), for instance, the father of modern experimental psychology, supervised approximately 190 doctoral students from at least 10 countries. Similarly, the First International Congress of Physiological Psychology in 1889, in Paris, included more than 200 participants from 20 countries (Sabourin & Cooper, 2014). Although psychology developed first in Europe, it soon began to prosper in the United States as well. Altogether, modern scientific psychology remained a predominantly western enterprise till well after World War II although modern psychology was already present in the early 1900s in some nonwestern countries such as India, Japan, and Mexico. The emigration of German and Austrian psychologists to the United States during the 1930s strengthened American psychology’s global influence. However, this consolidation also led to a focus on English-language scholarship and Western-centric perspectives (see David and Buchanan, 2003, and Bullock, 2012, for timelines of important events in the history of international psychology). In recent years, U.S. psychologists have shown increased awareness of the importance of incorporating global developments to better represent the field worldwide. For instance, the American Psychological Association established in 1997 an International Psychology Division (Division 52), which currently has about 600 members.